CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

319 ITR 306Supreme Court of India2009#31 most cited

What is CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. authority for?

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

1,344

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 383,061 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. · Alom Extrusions · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · Section 2(24)(x) · retrospective amendment · proviso interpretation · unintended consequences · employee contribution PF ESI · deduction allowance

Also reported as

1 SCC 489

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 50C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 2(24)section 43section 36(1)section 36section 139(1)section 139section 143(1)section 13prescribed

Judgments citing CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

Aspiration Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.340, 341/Bang/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20 M/s. Aspiration Advertising Private Limited, Vs. DCIT, No.301, No.16, Golden Bell Apartments, Central Processing Centre, 8th A Cross, Kodihalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru. PAN : AAECA 7711 M Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 11.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President Theseare appeals filed by t…

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5002/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd., Circle – 8(1), 1211, Padam Tower-1, 5 New Delhi - 110002 Rajendra Place New Delhi – 110 008 Pan : Aaace 2983 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ACIT Vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd., Circle – 8(1), 1211, Padam Tower-1, 5 New Delhi - 110002 Rajendra Place New Delhi – 110 008 PAN : AAACE 2983 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by --None-- Revenue by Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 04.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 02.04.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (App…

M/S Millenium Consultants& Service Providers, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 138/ALLD/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…The aforesaid view has consistently been followed by this Court in the following cases, viz., Whirlpool of India Ltd., v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 3, CIT v. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd.[2002] 255 ITR 117/[2002] 123 Taxman 74 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 (SC). 30. Hence, in light of the forgoing discussion and the binding effect of the judgment given in Allied Moters (P.) Ltd. case (supra), we are of the view that the amended provision of Sec 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively from the date when Section 40(a)(ia) was in…

The Chodavaram Co-Operative Sugars Limited, Chodavaram vs. The Dy.CIT/ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 25/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…de in view of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. In the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 35 Taxman 616, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, after referring to the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 & CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (The Chodavaram Co-op. Sugars Ltd.) held that the deductions should be allowed for the payment of employees’ contribution made before the due date of filing of return. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that contribution paid after the due date under the resp…

Reliant Investigation and Security Services, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.144/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Reliant Investigation & Security Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Ward-2(5) Lig-C-556, Ground Floor Visakhapatnam Sagar Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aakfr4627C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री एन के चौिरी,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस .सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.144/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Reliant Investigation and Security Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Ward-2(5) LIG-C-556, Ground Floor Visakhapatnam Sagar Nagar Visakhapatnam [PAN : AAKFR4627C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थ…

Ippili Srinivasa Rao, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.133/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Ippili Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.21-3-199/4 Ward-2 Ippiliveedhi Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Bijps7510K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री एन के चौिरी,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस .सुन्द रधसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.133/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Ippili Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.21-3-199/4 Ward-2 IppiliVeedhi Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [PAN : BIJPS7510K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appella…

Focus Trans Tech Shipping Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Range-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S Focus Trans Tech Shipping Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Private Ltd. Circle-3(1) 402, 9-29-19/A, Waltair Heights Visakhapatnam Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcf3074H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2021 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री एन के चौिरी,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस .सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/s Focus Trans Tech Shipping Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Private Ltd. Circle-3(1) 402, 9-29-19/A, Waltair Heights Visakhapatnam Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Visakhapatnam [PAN : AABCF3074H] (अपी…

S.V. .Engineering Constructions India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S S.V.Engineering Constructions Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax India (P) Ltd. Circle-3(1) B-Block, 2Nd Floor Visakhapatnam Vuda Udyog Bhavan Siripuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aancs4420J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2021 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री एन के चौिरी,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस .सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/s S.V.Engineering Constructions Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax India (P) Ltd. Circle-3(1) B-Block, 2nd Floor Visakhapatnam Vuda Udyog Bhavan Siripuram Visakhapatnam [PAN : AANCS4420J] (अपीलार…

Vani Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

The appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 83/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…de in view of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. In the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 35 Taxman 616, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, after referring to the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 & CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. held that the deductions should be allowed for the payment of employees’ contribution made before the due date of filing of return. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that contribution paid after the due date under the respective Act, but before filing the ret…

The Chodavaram Co-Operative Sugars Limited, Chodavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Visakhapatnam

ITA 28/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasa Rao, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…de in view of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. In the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 35 Taxman 616, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, after referring to the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 & CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (The Chodavaram Co-op. Sugars Ltd.) held that the deductions should be allowed for the payment of employees’ contribution made before the due date of filing of return. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that contribution paid after the due date under the resp…

M/S. Ratan Conductors, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1259/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

…eady quoted the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Virgin Creations (supra). The said decision refers to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. (Supra) and commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd, [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). In the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court was examining the first proviso to Section 43B and whether it was retrospective. Section 43B was inserted in the Act with effect from 1st April 1984 for curbing claims of taxpayers who did not discharge or pay statutory liabilities but claimed deductions on the ground that th…

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4815/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32A

…hat the statute was designed to remedy should be identified and then a construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy should be adopted. This proposition is also duly supported by Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 and the case of Calcutta Exports Company 404 ITR 694 that when an amendment is made to clarify or remove the hardship, the same is to be treated as clarificatory amendment and it applies retrospectively. 15 Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited 11. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, there certainly can be view on this i…

Parasol Laboratories India Pvt.Ldt, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Chandigrh

ITA 60/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date As Per The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के. सैनी, उपा"य एवं "ी आर.एल. नेगी, "या#यक सद%य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K. SAINI, VP & SHRI, R.L. NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 60/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 Parasol Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 45, The ACIT, बनाम New Timber Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh Circle 5(1), Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCP9203G अपीलाथ%/Appellant &'यथ%/Respondent "नधा"(रती क* ओर से/Assessee by : Shri T.N. Singla, C.A. राज"व क* ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…sessment Years: 2005-06 & 2007-08 Taxmann 352(SC) and CBDT notification SO 3422 dated 21.10.1965. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the following case laws: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306(SC) 2. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Sagun Foundry Private Limited v. CIT, Kanpur in ITA No. 87 of 2006, judgment dated 21.12.2016 3. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Singh in ITA no. 480 of 2008 , judgment dated 12.03.2012 4. Delhi ITAT decision in the case of DCIT v. M/s Leaseforces…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…sessment Years: 2005-06 & 2007-08 Taxmann 352(SC) and CBDT notification SO 3422 dated 21.10.1965. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the following case laws: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306(SC) 2. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Sagun Foundry Private Limited v. CIT, Kanpur in ITA No. 87 of 2006, judgment dated 21.12.2016 3. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Singh in ITA no. 480 of 2008 , judgment dated 12.03.2012 4. Delhi ITAT decision in the case of DCIT v. M/s Leaseforces…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1331/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…2 removes the defect in respect of disallowance U/s. 40a(ia) and has to be treated as retrospective amendment. The appellant relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman 14J/ 156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omiss…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1330/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…2 removes the defect in respect of disallowance U/s. 40a(ia) and has to be treated as retrospective amendment. The appellant relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman 14J/ 156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omiss…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1329/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…2 removes the defect in respect of disallowance U/s. 40a(ia) and has to be treated as retrospective amendment. The appellant relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman 14J/ 156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omiss…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1328/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…2 removes the defect in respect of disallowance U/s. 40a(ia) and has to be treated as retrospective amendment. The appellant relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman 14J/ 156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omiss…

Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6941/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, C/O. Chachan & Lath, 1308-1309, Special Range-4, Best Sky Tower, F-5, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi, New Delhi Pan: Aabci1085P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e prescribed under the respective provident fund and ESI laws and therefore, same is disallowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Limited 185 Taxmann 416 and if the same is paid before the due date of filing of return of income same is allowable as deduction. The ld AO rejected the contentions of the assessee and disallowed a sum of Rs. 12,16,260/- and passed an assessment order on 15.11.2016 determining the total income of the assessee of Rs. 2,53,89,210/-. On appeal also the ld CIT(A) confir…